Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Technician

A Large Utility

Representatives

Barnaba Dorda SIPTU

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00016073-001

30/11/2017

The complainant has been employed by the respondent since 1983. The complainant is a Reinstatement Officer employed by a large utility company.   The complainant is a on Band 8 of the respondent’s pay-scale but believes he should be on Band 7. The complainant lodged a Complaint Form with the WRC on 30th November 2017 under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

The complainant provided a detailed written submission.

The claim made by the complainant is for equal pay for equal work performed by him on an ongoing basis.

The complainant submits that he is not being paid equal pay for doing equal work and this alleged inequality and disparity in pay for the work he performs has been ongoing for some time now. The complainant submits that he has tried to resolve the matter at local level but to no avail.

The complainant submits that in 2014 the respondent assigned an employee of a higher grade to assist him in his work. It is the complainant’s contention that he was doing the same work as this other employee and should be paid the same as the other employee. The complainant submits that this is not the first time this has happened.

The complainant tried to address the matter around March 2017 and following a meeting with the respondent in August 2017 his claim was rejected.

The complainant contends that the inequality he has experienced has not been addressed by the respondent, despite a number of previous attempts by the complainant to get the matter resolved.

The complainant disagrees with the respondent’s case that his role was correctly validated by Hay in 2007 and that the Hay system “was developed in the 1950s, is out of date, can be open to misrepresentation and has been subject to criticism.”

The complainant also believes his role carries greater responsibility with it now than it did at the time of the Hay evaluation.

The complainant also puts forward that following a formal bullying investigation the company appointed investigators concluded that there was a duplication of roles yet the respondent failed to do anything to right the wrong in relation to the inequality of pay.

The complainant believes that in light of the work he carries out he should be paid at the rate paid to the next band up and this should be paid retrospectively to cover the period of the alleged inequality in pay.

The respondent provided a detailed written submission.

The respondent submits that the complainant has previously made requests for pay-parity with Band 7 employees. In respect of the pay-parity aspect, the respondent sought to be re-graded from a Reinstatement Officer (Band 8) to Band 7 which is the Reinstatement Supervisors band.

This dispute had been ongoing for some time and the respondent previously commissioned an independent adjudication by senior figure in the trade union movement.

The Report concluded that the Hay evaluation was carried out in a fair and transparent manner, that there was no credible basis on which to set aside the evaluation, that the post held by the complainant would never receive a higher grading within the Hay system.   The independent Adjudicator also found that the appeals process was slow due to management inaction. To bring finality to the matter the Adjudicator proposed a once off payment of €6,000 be made to the complainant in full and final settlement of the matter.   The Adjudicator also suggested that the complainant, “park the past, move on and look seriously at pursuing any upgrading aspirations through promotion."

In an effort to bring conclusion to the matter, the sum of €6,000 was paid to the complainant in full and final settlement of the issue.

The respondent submits that notwithstanding the express basis on which the ex-gratia payment was made, the complainant again sought to raise this issue before the Labour Court in 2010 when he made a claim to the Labour Court in respect of mileage and overtime.

Some 5 years after the agreement was reached pursuant to the independent Adjudication the complainant referred this matter to a Right Commissioner. The dispute was heard in November 2013 and February 2014. The Rights Commissions Recommendation issued on 1 April 2014.

The Rights Commissioner concluded as follows:

"I have examined the evidence submitted on behalf of the claimant for regrading to Band Seven, setting aside the fact that the accepted €6,000 in full and final settlement in regard to this matter, I concluded at his level of actual responsibility is not at the same level as the other supervisors on an ongoing basis. In conclusion, the claimant has engaged in use of a consultant, the Labour Court, and now the Rights Commission Service. I will be now putting it on record after 2 hearings, I do not find this claim well founded and they fail".

The respondent submits that on 16 April 2014 the complainant appealed this Recommendation to the Labour Court and the hearing took place in June 2014. The Labour Court decision issued in July 2014 concluded as follows:

"… having considered all aspects of this claim the court is cognisant in the settlement reached in 2008 and is not satisfied that cogent arguments have been submitted to uphold his claim for pay parity with a construction supervisor, Band 7.

Therefore the Court does not uphold the claims appeal of the Rights Commissioners Recommendation".

The respondent submits that the complainant’s role has not changed since it was last evaluated. This evaluation process has been reviewed and approved by the Rights Commissioner Service (as it was then known) and by the Labour Court.

The respondent contends that the complainant is effectively abusing the industrial relations mechanisms of the state by consistently referring the same complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission and thereafter the Labour Court.

It is the respondent’s view that the role to which the complainant now appears to be comparing his role is that of a Reinstatement Foreman. This is a supervisory role with responsibility for allocating work directly to crews, direct supervision on site of methods and quality of work, issuing of instructions on site directly to crews and payment approval responsibility for work completed. The complainant’s role on the other hand is largely administrative and involves liaising with contractors and Local Authorities to resolve reinstatement issues.

The respondent submits that a job description was produced and provided to the complainant when these issues arose many years ago. The role being performed by the respondent is precisely as set out in this job description which has been identified as being graded appropriately having regard for the role and the responsibilities pertaining to it.

In conclusion, the respondent puts forward that complainant’s role is and remains that of Reinstatement Officer and that as such his claim should fail.

I do not find merit in this complaint.

I have considered this matter carefully. I recommend that the complaint accept he is graded correctly and, as advised previously, pursue his regrading aspirations by way of promotion.

Grading, payment,